Help me sort out the diff between: m98, husky 1600, FN98

H

huntingfish

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Location
Quebec City
Hi fellow CGN'ers,
I'm looking to purchase a new rifle in 9.3x62 from tradeEx in the near future. I'm a bit lost when it comes to understanding the difference between various actions: m98, a husky 1600, husky 640, husky fn98, zastava m98 and m96.

I have a mauser m96 and I think it works flawlessly. I don't see it being a problem in using an m96 in 9.3x62 or should I seek a stronger action (m98)?

Are m98's all created equal?

Cheers!

Fish
 
huntingfish said:
Hi fellow CGN'ers,
I'm looking to purchase a new rifle in 9.3x62 from tradeEx in the near future. I'm a bit lost when it comes to understanding the difference between various actions: m98, a husky 1600, husky 640, husky fn98, zastava m98 and m96.

I have a mauser m96 and I think it works flawlessly. I don't see it being a problem in using an m96 in 9.3x62 or should I seek a stronger action (m98)?

Are m98's all created equal?

Cheers!

Fish
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, and I'm sure I'll be corrected but I think the Husky 640 and the Husky fn98 are the same thing. Post your Q on the Husky sticky above and the resident Husky Guru (Baribal:)) will be along, I sure....
I have an 8mm FN98 and one of the new Zastava 9.3 from Tradex and love them both....can't go wrong with a '98
 
I picked myself up one of the Husky 1600 in a .30 06 recently. Its a damned nice piece of equipment for $425. The action is smooth like butter.
 
Ho! well, I'm no Guru, at least I hope so. Don't wanna be some kind of Kool-Aid freak a la Jim Jones :stirthepot2: - I"m just a very curious guy.

The main differences between the M/94/96/38 variants and the M/98 and the 1640 are;

M/94/96/38 are small ring, ####-on-closing actions with poor escaping gases handling (if a case failure occurs). The bolt have two front lugs and the bolt can back-up in case of major action failure.
But don't get me wrong, they're good actions, as long as they are respected for what they are, means actions designed when cartridges pressures did not exceed 45 000 PSI - the metal used for the se actions is low carbon steel, such as SAE 1025 (but, yes, we all know they can handle more).

M/98 and 1640 are similar (while different) actions, the M/98 being a Large Ring action and the 1640 a Small Ring action and both are ####-on-open actions. Both have better venting of the back of the chamber (in case of case head failure) and a third lug which will avoid the bolt to back-up in case of major action failure. The 1640 is a modern action made of modern alloy, tested following CIP method (but Sweden or HVA were / are not not member of the CIP). The "1600" is in reality the short barreled version of the 1640 (nominal).
All in all, the M/98 and the 1640 are much stronger actions, up to today's Magnum power.

Now, the early 640 series were made on M/38 while later were made on M/98.
The early (and all others M/94/96/38 derivatives) have short magazines, not longer than 3.240"/3.260" for the model 649 (9.3X62).
The M/98 have "standard" magazines, wich can hold 30-06 lenght cases (3.340" OAL).

Zastava are the FN "modernized" M/98 (named #300 and / or Supreme) actions. There is no such things as Zastava M/96.
Most post war M/98 are better than the previous ones, as they were made of alloy steel, not Low carbon steel.

All in all, it will depend on what you are looking for. If you think you may try to drive your bullets at the speed of light, I would suggest you stay with more modern designs. The rest is a matter of personal choice.

Check out the Husqvarna sticky especially in the first pages where the differences between the actions is clearly pictured.
 
Last edited:
The M98 Mauser was designed and built around low carbon steel which was carburized as required. More recent commercial actions used different steel. Based on drilling and tapping receivers, I suspect that the metallurgy of M96 CG and M38 Husqvarna receivers is different.
I have never, ever, heard of a Mauser action failure in which the locking lugs sheared.
The M98 is a much better than average design from the standpoint of handling gas from a failed cartridge case, better than the earlier Mausers and some later designs. The derived M1903 Springfield and M70 Winchester are inferior in comparison.
 
tiriaq said:
......I have never, ever, heard of a Mauser action failure in which the locking lugs sheared.
The M98 is a much better than average design from the standpoint of handling gas from a failed cartridge case, ..... The derived M1903 Springfield and M70 Winchester are inferior in comparison.[/QUOTE]

This is most certainly true!

Ted
Click to expand...
 
The typical pre-98 failure is the top of the front receiver tearing under case head failure. There are many reports on that and Norma was able to identify and explain the SEE by destroying many M/94/96/38 (check out the pictured M/94 in Norma's manual #1 in the "safety" chapter). This is a very well known fact in Sweden.. However, it is true to say that most 94/96/38 failures occured while the rifles were chambered for the 6.5X55 (which under some circonstances, is known to be SEE sensible). When you shear the top of the front the action bend and most of the time restrains the bolt from backing too far. But in fact, there's nothing more to stop the bolt from backing "too far".
In the recent years, outside of Sweden, many M/96/94/38 were reported after blow-ups, this includes all matching M/41 type sniper and even some CG63 rifles in perfect shape.
Lug set-back (receiver and bolt) are more common in non-swedish pre-98 actions, but they also show up once in a while in M/94/96/38 series. It is also a plague for some of the wartime made M/98.

The original concept of the Mauser actions (started with the '92) is a soft core under a hard shell, so the components will likely deform before failure and this feature was carried on the M/98. Of course, this is not a coincidence if Paul Mauser choose to modifiy the escaping gas handling capabilities for the M/98 by adding a modified bolt shroud to deflect gases, added a third lug on the bolt and opened the bolt to deflect gases in the runway, plus adding material on the receiver ring, in the same time the Commission was testing high pressure rounds (which ended up choosing the 7.92X57I).
The 94/96/38 material is of a pure (Swedish) low-carbon steel (ranging between equivalents of SAE 1025, almost no silicium) and the Swedes also mastered the carburizing process much better than any other nations, the receiver's hardened layer consistently being around 0.008" deep, the outside hardness being around 40 RH "C" and the core being around 25 RH "C".
The Swedish steel was the material of choice material of Sir Charles Ross.

Several other pre-98 models, with some exceptions, had too little carbon in their steel. They are typically ranging from our equivalent SAE 1020 to SAE 1030 and could be anywhere in between, depending on their origin. Also, they tend to have a much less controlled carburizing, sometimes too deep, sometimes too shallow.

Excepted the M/94/96 and 38, the M/98, in general, shows better material homogeneity of all Mausers. It typically appears to be of the SAE 1035 equivalent. The biggest difference between all of them is carburizing depth which goes all over the place under the stress of war.

According to P.O. Ackley, while there are material, hardness and heat-treatment differences, the P-14/M17 (nickel-steel SAE 2340), (late) Springfield '03 (Nickel-Steel) and the '98 Mauser shows similar overall pressure resistance. The main difference is that the '98 is a safer action because it handles much better escaping gases and the fact that they were made of low-carbon steel was a better choice, as it won't form thermal cracks or inconsistent grain structure under heat-treatment.
The P-14/M17 made by Remington (Eddystone and Remington) have are regarded as being of a lesser resitance because they lack the quality control Winchester performed on their heat treatment. Same goes for the early '03, which had some heat treatment issues.

Most early post-WWII actions were made of Nickel-Steel and later Chrome-Moly steel (SAE 4140 familly of steel) steel continuing to evolve in pressure resistance filed, and gave such as the 410 SS series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom